3 ms·

This, although I hate the phrase “earn a living.” The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional. True, in a state of nature, we would

This, although I hate the phrase “earn a living.” The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional. True, in a state of nature, we would all have to work to survive, but we also wouldn’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights” either. We could just use our hunting spears on the people trying to block our access to resources. If society expects us to follow rules, as it needs us to do in some fashion, then it should offer basic protection.

badpun 3y ago
> The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional. Take it up with the creator of the Universe, as those are the rules they've chosen - valueable things, such as food, heat or shelter, do not just materialize in front of people out of thin air. They need to be grown or made, and it requires work.
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  everyone understands the base rules. you aren’t doing anything more than rudely restating the current state of things. if you don’t want a replicator, that’s fine. just get out of the way please. there’s work to be done.
  - badpun 3y ago
    The OP's stance was that the right for people to have essential stuff for free should be granted NOW, not in some hypothetical future scenario.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      so as immediate is impossible, what’s the next step? to grit one’s teeth?
      - badpun 3y ago
        I did not consider what's the next step, as that wasn't the subject of discussion.
        catchnear4321 3y ago
        so there is the gap. you think them unrelated.
        badpun 3y ago
        I just don't think there's anything in particular that we could we doing that we aren't doing already. It's not like the whole capitalist enterprise is not working towards maximizing efficiency across the board. This might eventually, at some people in the future, bring us genuine abundancy. The point is, we're working on it already.
- dohaeris 3y ago
  You clearly didn’t read my argument. What you describe is exactly how it works in a state of nature, but in a state of nature there are no rules. You don’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights.” You can just spear the people you don’t like. I personally don’t want to live (would probably die) that way, but if society is going to impose rules on us, it needs to offer something better than the state of nature. Right now it really doesn’t; it has 100 times the resources but offers only artificial scarcity and make-work to keep the wagecucks in line.
  - badpun 3y ago
    Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge improvement. Also, how is the current scarcity artificial? Are we limiting the output somehow? Could we for example produce much more cheap food, but we don't, in order to keep the proles scared?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
      - badpun 3y ago
        The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.
DrThunder 3y ago
” The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional." This is a silly statement. You might as well say Superman powers ought to be unconditional. Whose rights get to be trampled to give you this unconditional right to do nothing while receiving "free" stuff? Anyone with your mindset is an out of touch elitist. SOMEONE will still have to provide you food, electricity, medical etc. So, what you're saying is you actually want a slave class that provides YOU the right to not "earn a living".
momirlan 3y ago
it's called communism, and it's not pretty - i grew up there

badpun 3y ago

> The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional. Take it up with the creator of the Universe, as those are the rules they've chosen - valueable things, such as food, heat or shelter, do not just materialize in front of people out of thin air. They need to be grown or made, and it requires work.

catchnear4321 3y ago
everyone understands the base rules. you aren’t doing anything more than rudely restating the current state of things. if you don’t want a replicator, that’s fine. just get out of the way please. there’s work to be done.
- badpun 3y ago
  The OP's stance was that the right for people to have essential stuff for free should be granted NOW, not in some hypothetical future scenario.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    so as immediate is impossible, what’s the next step? to grit one’s teeth?
    - badpun 3y ago
      I did not consider what's the next step, as that wasn't the subject of discussion.
      - catchnear4321 3y ago
        so there is the gap. you think them unrelated.
        badpun 3y ago
        I just don't think there's anything in particular that we could we doing that we aren't doing already. It's not like the whole capitalist enterprise is not working towards maximizing efficiency across the board. This might eventually, at some people in the future, bring us genuine abundancy. The point is, we're working on it already.
dohaeris 3y ago
You clearly didn’t read my argument. What you describe is exactly how it works in a state of nature, but in a state of nature there are no rules. You don’t have to obey anyone’s so-called “property rights.” You can just spear the people you don’t like. I personally don’t want to live (would probably die) that way, but if society is going to impose rules on us, it needs to offer something better than the state of nature. Right now it really doesn’t; it has 100 times the resources but offers only artificial scarcity and make-work to keep the wagecucks in line.
- badpun 3y ago
  Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge improvement. Also, how is the current scarcity artificial? Are we limiting the output somehow? Could we for example produce much more cheap food, but we don't, in order to keep the proles scared?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
    - badpun 3y ago
      The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.

DrThunder 3y ago

” The right not to preventably and painfully die should be unconditional." This is a silly statement. You might as well say Superman powers ought to be unconditional. Whose rights get to be trampled to give you this unconditional right to do nothing while receiving "free" stuff? Anyone with your mindset is an out of touch elitist. SOMEONE will still have to provide you food, electricity, medical etc. So, what you're saying is you actually want a slave class that provides YOU the right to not "earn a living".

momirlan 3y ago

it's called communism, and it's not pretty - i grew up there